If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Re: Pacers looking to trade Danny?

6 all stars to Joe compared to 1 to Danny proves who the best player is, I know you and others don't want to admit it but It is the true.

Just watch how JJ takes another all star this year while Danny("the better player") watch the game from home.

I actually feel that JJ is a bit of a better player than DG, just feel the difference is marginal. Me being the homer that I am though, I'm taking DG bc he's the better shooter and gets to the line more.

And the players that JJ beat out for those AS appearances (ESP the names you reeled off) aren't exactly a who's who of relevant players over the past 5 years or so. (Cept Ray and Iggy--who plays more of a SF role)

Re: Pacers looking to trade Danny?

Danny's still a high usage player. He takes more shots per minute than all SFs except for the big 3. He took just as many shots this year as he did last year, so he didn't exactlly "take a step back", even after we aquired an all star caliber offensive player and Roy developed into an all star. IMO if your gonna take shot attempts like a #1 you ought to be able to do something other then just score the ball.

When I'm evaluating a player why should I credit Danny more for his 2 extra FTs a game, than I do Joe for his 2 extra assists?

Look, I realize his TS% is higher, and he's technically a more efficient scorer, but scoring is only a small part of offense. There are lots of intangible things I think Joe blows Danny away in; like ball handling, offensive awareness, PnR, isolation abilities, etc... stuff you can't quantify with a statistic (unless you have a synergy account... and they screwed mine up )

edit: sorry, but I'm not going to handicap Danny because he's a SF and Joe's a SG. Joe could easily start at SF. In fact he did for a large portion of the season and was better there then at SG.

There are other elements to offense, but don't confuse it, scoring is by far the most important part of it, especially for a non point guard wing player. In no way is scoring a "small" part of the offense, it is the ends to which every other part of an offense aspires to. I'm not going to argue whether Danny is the better offensive player, let's not forget, even if Danny is a bit more efficient Joe is a good scorer too, but the purpose of an offense is to score, and especially at Danny and JJ's positions it is the most important aspect of the offensive side of the game.

Re: Pacers looking to trade Danny?

There are other elements to offense, but don't confuse it, scoring is by far the most important part of it, especially for a non point guard wing player. In no way is scoring a "small" part of the offense, it is the ends to which every other part of an offense aspires to. I'm not going to argue whether Danny is the better offensive player, let's not forget, even if Danny is a bit more efficient Joe is a good scorer too, but the purpose of an offense is to score, and especially at Danny and JJ's positions it is the most important aspect of the offensive side of the game.

I meant small in the sense that putting the ball in the basket is only 1 of many offensive skills.

Re: Pacers looking to trade Danny?

This is why PER's so silly to me. It rates Danny higher than JJ after one of JJ's best seasons and arguably Danny's worst. IMO it overrates the heck out of Danny and always has.

Then it doesn't even have Rondo ranked in the top 20 amongst PGs which is mind numbing...

While I agree that PER isn't a great stat, are you saying EFF is better?? Somebody was arguing JJ and Monta are better than Danny because of EFF, of all things.

EDIT: Btw, I have no problem saying JJ is more skilled than Danny. If we're talking about more efficient though, well that's specific and quantifiable and IMO the stats show Danny to be superior over his career.

Re: Pacers looking to trade Danny?

I meant small in the sense that putting the ball in the basket is only 1 of many offensive skills.

I'll agree that JJ is a highly skilled player. But that's my problem with his game. He's extremely skilled yet it doesn't actually translate onto the court. He's a lot like Rudy Gay. Both guys can get their shot against anyone, both have great jumpers, all the physical tools in the world yet it has never translated into the type of performance they should be capable of.

If you took both JJ and Wade and had them playing in court by themselves and had random observers who had never heard of either player I truly believe all of them would conclude Joe Johnson is probably the best player. Yet in a real world application Wade is all world and Joe is a borderline allstar. Joe should have been great.

Rudy should be great too, yet Memphis was ready to trade him this summer because they don't believe he'll ever reach his potential.

Re: Pacers looking to trade Danny?

Kind of like when Phil Jackson went with his intuition concerning corner three pointers. There's a real chance Phil Jackson cost the Lakers a championship because he went with his intuition instead of facts.

You're seriously using Phil Jackson as an argument that coaches using intuition hurts their success. Maybe he'll let you borrow that 11th championship ring that he can't put on his finger.

I'm sorry, but Phil Jackson has earned the benefit of the doubt.

While I generally disagree with McKeyFan's "Intuition over Integers" rule, I think shags has it right. Anyone questioning Phil Jackson should keep in mind that he's been right a lot more than he's wrong.

My view on stats are that they represent a simplified model of reality. More stats gives a more detailed, nuanced view of the reality, which is why I generally support the advanced stats crowd. However, I have no problem accepting that there are some exceptional people who can process the whole complex view of reality in their heads (what one may call "intuition" I guess) who wouldn't need to rely as much on numbers. For the more run-of-the-mill types though (including most GMs and coaches!), stats probably represent a more accurate view.

The Following User Says Thank You to wintermute For This Useful Post:

Re: Pacers looking to trade Danny?

For the record I concluded earlier Phil Jackson is one of the greatest coaches ever. You obviously do not need statistics at all to understand the game. Watch the game and it doesn't take much to realize what works and what doesn't. However, anyone including Phil Jackson as I stated above, can misconstrue what you're watching.

The podcast I linked above showed a massive mistake Phil Jackson made by not helping his already advanced knowledge of the game when he refused to use helpful numbers.

In short Phil said this paraphrased: Corner three point shots are bad shots in basketball because they lead to easy fast breaks. Of course it is quite common knowledge at this point that the corner three is actually the best shot in basketball. Phil against Boston had players streaking down the court for fast breaks that never happened. Not only did Boston absolutely rain down hell upon LA from the corners they also ended up getting offensive rebounds as well because Phil had his guys rushing down the court for easy baskets.

You can have the greatest understanding in the world of all things basketball without ever using statistics, however they help. A lot. So anyone, even Phil Jackson should try to understand the numbers as they supplement an already vast knowledge of the game.

Edit - On another note a lot of times when judging basketball players or coaches in this case, we like to make absolutes. As in "Phil is a great coach and a winner." As if anyone who is great no longer has the ability to ever make mistakes. Everyone makes mistakes. Including Phil Jackson. Including Kobe. Including Michael. Including LeBron. It happens. It doesn't mean you're suddenly a "loser" if you made key mistakes that led to playoff losses. LBJ and Dirk, our last two championship winners are both examples of that. Both had prior NBA Finals appearances where they played bad. They rectified the situation by putting up dominating performances in their next opportunities respectively.

Edit - I know you weren't necessarily disagreeing with everything I said wintermute I was simply clarifying the respect I have for Phil Jackson.

Re: Pacers looking to trade Danny?

While I generally disagree with McKeyFan's "Intuition over Integers" rule, I think shags has it right. Anyone questioning Phil Jackson should keep in mind that he's been right a lot more than he's wrong.

My view on stats are that they represent a simplified model of reality. More stats gives a more detailed, nuanced view of the reality, which is why I generally support the advanced stats crowd. However, I have no problem accepting that there are some exceptional people who can process the whole complex view of reality in their heads (what one may call "intuition" I guess) who wouldn't need to rely as much on numbers. For the more run-of-the-mill types though (including most GMs and coaches!), stats probably represent a more accurate view.

I think, I'm pretty sure, we're saying the same thing. All coaches should use stats, even advanced stats. But the best coaches must use their intuition for a lot of final decisions, and those decisions often (not always) work out. Which is why they are the best coaches.

It's like many things. For example, the greatest chefs don't go strictly by a recipe. What makes them the greatest is that they are on a higher plane, working off their intuition.

"Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

Re: Pacers looking to trade Danny?

6 all stars to Joe compared to 1 to Danny proves who the best player is, I know you and others don't want to admit it but It is the true.

Just watch how JJ takes another all star this year while Danny("the better player") watch the game from home.

If they played the same position (even the same AS "combined" position) you'd have a point. However, Danny could be twice as good as JJ and still not get to the AS game because he'd still not be seen to be as good as the top forwards in the East.

This year's stats at all levels are flawed for use as comparisons because, unlike most years, teams in the same conference did NOT play the same opponents for the year. That makes it very difficult to even out who you played against as an effect.

Bottom line is that I think almost everyone is agreeing that DG is not as good as JJ. The argument is that JJ is not somehow Michael Jordan to DGs Mike Dunleavy.

BillS

A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

Re: Pacers looking to trade Danny?

The stat doesn't overrate players though. The people reading the stat overrate the stat, and thus the players they use the stat to defend/criticize. Which is why Vnlza thanking your post, after he's the one who brought the stat up is quite odd.

I thought vnzla used the NBA efficiency stat and said he DIDN'T like Hollinger's PER?

BillS

A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

Re: Pacers looking to trade Danny?

If they played the same position (even the same AS "combined" position) you'd have a point. However, Danny could be twice as good as JJ and still not get to the AS game because he'd still not be seen to be as good as the top forwards in the East.

This year's stats at all levels are flawed for use as comparisons because, unlike most years, teams in the same conference did NOT play the same opponents for the year. That makes it very difficult to even out who you played against as an effect.

Bottom line is that I think almost everyone is agreeing that DG is not as good as JJ. The argument is that JJ is not somehow Michael Jordan to DGs Mike Dunleavy.

All Danny Granger had to do was beat players like Gerald Wallace, Deng and Rashard Lewis to make it to all star game, his competition (if we can even call it like that) over the years have been Lebron and Pierce, and of course now Melo is in the east but according to some here in PD Melo is also not as good as Danny or they are equal.

And not everybody is agreeing that JJ is better than Danny just read the previous posts and nope I'm not saying that Danny is Mike Dunleavy(another overrated player in his time with the Pacers by the way) either.

Re: Pacers looking to trade Danny?

nope I'm not saying that Danny is Mike Dunleavy(another overrated player in his time with the Pacers by the way) either.

You're saying a guy 8 places below JJ on the efficiency chart you are using for support is so far below JJ as to not even merit consideration of being comparable. That's the part that boggles me.

Here's my thought. Danny has no more excuses this year. He isn't being coached by JOB, he'll have had a full working offseason with no limits on coaching contact, and there will be a full training camp. Let's see what he does this season before consigning him to the dungheap as the worst top starter in the league.

BillS

A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

Re: Pacers looking to trade Danny?

I'll give you Iggy, but the rest of those guys, huh uh. My point still stands.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

I don't think is that hard to figured out what I was talking about, Joe Johnson has been going to all star games for 6 years and to make it there he had to compete against all those guys I mentioned and more, just because there aren't that many guards in the east RIGHT NOW doesn't mean that there have never been all star quality shooting guards in the past.

Re: Pacers looking to trade Danny?

I can't believe this conversation is even still going.

Danny is a second tier SF. He always has been. He will continue to be that until his game fades away due to athletic limitations. Even then, he will minimize his decline by being an efficient player, who makes smart decisions and is a capable shot maker. Paul Pierce has done this very well. So too will Danny. I don't know why it matters whether or not Joe Johnson is better than Danny or not. They won't match up with each other very often. Danny is the bigger player, who fills a different role due to a differing skill set. From a capologist standpoint, I'd rather have Danny at roughly half the cost. From a pickup game standpoint where I'm selecting a team for one game, I'd rather have Joe.

Danny is amongst the Deng, Iggy, Wallace, Josh Smith, Pierce, and Gay tier of SFs. He is clearly a top ten SF.

He is a good defender, but lacks lateral quickness as compared to some guys. He is stronger than a lot of his peers. He is a better shooter than most of his peers. He could use a post game, which it befuddles me why he hasn't added this to his arsenal. We are lucky to have Danny as a leader in our locker room. Danny won't win us a title by himself, no but he is clearly good enough to be a part of a team that could win a championship.

We won't get enough of an upgrade by trading Granger to make it worth our while. And we certainly aren't interested in trading him for youth and draft picks.

"Your course, your path, is not going to be like mine," West says. "Everybody is not called to be a multimillionaire. Everybody's not called to be the president. Whatever your best work is, you do it. Do it well. … You cease your own greatness when you aspire to be someone else."

Re: Pacers looking to trade Danny?

Danny is a second tier SF. He always has been. He will continue to be that until his game fades away due to athletic limitations. Even then, he will minimize his decline by being an efficient player, who makes smart decisions and is a capable shot maker. Paul Pierce has done this very well. So too will Danny. I don't know why it matters whether or not Joe Johnson is better than Danny or not. They won't match up with each other very often. Danny is the bigger player, who fills a different role due to a differing skill set. From a capologist standpoint, I'd rather have Danny at roughly half the cost. From a pickup game standpoint where I'm selecting a team for one game, I'd rather have Joe.

Danny is amongst the Deng, Iggy, Wallace, Josh Smith, Pierce, and Gay tier of SFs. He is clearly a top ten SF.

He is a good defender, but lacks lateral quickness as compared to some guys. He is stronger than a lot of his peers. He is a better shooter than most of his peers. He could use a post game, which it befuddles me why he hasn't added this to his arsenal. We are lucky to have Danny as a leader in our locker room. Danny won't win us a title by himself, no but he is clearly good enough to be a part of a team that could win a championship.

We won't get enough of an upgrade by trading Granger to make it worth our while. And we certainly aren't interested in trading him for youth and draft picks.

Truth. He has the strength to defend probably any PF in the league yet he doesn't have a dominate post game?? The post should be Danny's bread and butter.

The Following User Says Thank You to mattie For This Useful Post:

Re: Pacers looking to trade Danny?

BillS;1497022]You're saying a guy 8 places below JJ on the efficiency chart you are using for support is so far below JJ as to not even merit consideration of being comparable. That's the part that boggles me.

As I told you before I used efficiency as a tool not the tool, I just wanted to show some guys that thought that Danny was better than JJ that it wasn't true, I'm not even thinking about efficiency when I say that Danny is not even close to JJ, JJ has all the tools you need in player, he can dribble, he can pass, he can shoot from anywhere, he can post up, even in the crappy isolation based offense in Atlanta he was able to put huge numbers, the guy is the closest thing to a superstar in my opinion, the guy can go for 40 points and 10 assist in any given game, now compared that to Danny, Danny is good at posting up and shooting threes, he can also play some D when he want's to, what else Danny brings to the table that is better than JJ?

Again I'm not trashing or hating Danny I'm just comparing the players and their tools and is not even close.

Here's my thought. Danny has no more excuses this year. He isn't being coached by JOB, he'll have had a full working offseason with no limits on coaching contact, and there will be a full training camp. Let's see what he does this season before consigning him to the dungheap as the worst top starter in the league.

There shouldn't be excuses for him last year either, he wasn't coached by JOB, yes he didn't have a full working offseason but nobody in the NBA had that going for them, Roy got better and didn't make excuses.